Fefl1lbSCandi •• rclweologic. XI (/994)

Gleb Lebedev'

SLAVS AND FINNS IN NORTHWEST RUSSIA REVISITED

In his article, Dr Ligi underlines that with regard to the problem of Slavic migration into Northwest Russia his position is not far removed from certain ideas expressed "by some Russian scholars 15 yeas ago". He characterized. however, this conception as a "softer" version of the theory of Slavic coloni­zation (Ligi 1993, 33). As one of these scholars (particularly the author of the chapter on the North­west wbich pertains to tbis problem), I would like to make a few remarks.

Our book (Bulkin et aI. 1978) was, and was to re­main, marginal in fonner Soviet archaeology as an attempt to find new approaches different from tbe I'national-romantic" paradigm of Slavic ethno­genesis. This work, however, had its own context of research. The concrete results of recent excavations and hypotheses were also marginal. and were to re­main so. This is one of the features of a paradigm crisis, and not only a "national-romantic" one.

At the same time, I published materials (rom one of the earliest known sopka barrows which had been excavated in 1972. It was a typical mound near Rep'y on the Upper Luga River, i.e. on the pe­riphery of the tribal territory of the Slovenes west of Lake limen (Lebedev 1978).

Paradoxically, the earliest assemblages (in cre­malions) of this "typical sopka" contained rich sets of women's ornaments, which are typical of the "long barrows". The chronological position of all these assemblages (not only of these but of the sopkas in general) covered the periods from the 7th to the 8th and from the 9th to the 10th centuries, and a series of inhumation graves (ca. 20) shows that this population also used their local cemetery from the 11th to the 14th century (near the sopka are typical zhalnik graves) (Fig. 1).

Five years later, V. Sedov described this barrow

1 Department of Arcbaeology. Faculty of History. Meodeleeyskaj. line V.O., 199034 51. Petersburg, Russia.

as "one of the most interesting sopkas excavated by G. Lebedev" (Sedov 1982, 61). Despite clear evi­dence to the contrary, E. Nosov stated that " it is not a sopka but a long barrow" (Nosov 1982, 61). However, neither Nosov, Konetski et aI. nor Ligi himself take into account this ~'most interesting sopka" with regard to its chronological and cultural connections.

I am aware of the difficulties arising from the in­terpretation of these and similar facts. At the time, I wrote (Lebedev 1981) of the crisis of this "ethno­cultural" (in Ligi's terms '~national-romantic")

paradigm not only in its dominant version but also in its "alternative" fonn. Neither one answers ques­tions arising from the .ctual finds and assemblages (Fig. 2).

The "opposite hypothesis" is the "new para­digm" (this term was used in the title of a lecture delivered by this author at a conference in 1979). A more complex, but also more complete, scheme was proposed. This includes not only all the varie­ties of burial monuments (groups of long barrows, sopkas and other burial grounds of the "transitional times", as well as the "Old Russian mounds", zhalniks and others). It also incorporates various types of settlements (rustic, pre-urban and urban) (Fig. 3).

Ligi is correct in referring to our view that ur­banization was the main factor contributing to "Slavic colonization" . But it is questionable whether infiltration from these "pre-urban" centres into the agrarian surroundings was necessary for the existence and rise of these centres. The Sur­rounding population was more or less "Slavoni­cized" by language, culture and economy.

The medieval culture of Northwest Russia is termed "Old Russian". It is both Slavic and Finnic, i.e. with Karelian, Ingrian and other components at the periphery of the Novgorod State in the period from the 11th to the 15th century. I suggest that the beginning of this medieval culture was connected

89

.>'" leA b ~LY- ~ l·~' _,I" II

o IN ~~ j>V I I- K[3;~' z ~~--> . .Y ! ~ 1"< ~I" 't' f ~ 'J :u I~

- -1-- f- - --Ii I.~ - :.:1:::.= I,; I- Ic> - r~::h) r r- r - ,- Is

1- _< '" , ,- 17

1'11<-1 o~ ~ ~ II I" r\JM :01# I-~~ lil ~v. K ~ III 1->1" ~ ~ II ~ ~ 1_,'. III

I f s" r /I £ :..w J 1/ K /I

;.'(, "". _,r,.. .~:,;>i> ! lL ~ I "'. -~" I

""" -,~. ~;y /' 1 j"<. ~ ~ Z

I .. ~~~ /' jl! 'I "'IJ ¥" It Jli 11 I~ f- f- --1- __ ~.JIL '-I-I- I--I.f

1- :- - ,- r9- lr r- - r - r -- I' r.-l ' I"~ 11 -'- 17 * ~~ ... I If I" 1'\ .. I~IP =l ~v< IJ'

~~ '> .::. " t 1;:) ~V' I.>\'-'I~ .... ~ t:w; Itl ..1I

1lI

.~: :-:~. 1-'" I '

.u 0.::::::::::' ~

~"4"

.. II'

C_], ::':::::': &

=.:w ~-l ~.r

x

",*,?U

G') K

E!) ",

X'IC)( ,., Xx

L!fH

,~

~' .. ~'

~'.' :~ ' ... I . ·0

~ .. .." "1°. ~

", .. " 17'

I I

I

Fig, 1, Sopka, Rep'y , Mound levels and finds assemblages (after Lebedev 1978).

I

.IT

Fig. 1. Cont.

.II

p . /~N L-.-..:J

Zh Zh

t t I ORC I ORC I

t

ck~ I RS I

~dJ a) b)

Fig. 2. Dominating (a) and "alternative" (b) versions of the "ethnocultural paradigm". LB - long bar­rows, S - sopkas, RB - round barrows (with crc­mations). ORC - "Old Russian cullurc". ZH -zhalniks (after Lebedev 1981).

with the last of tbe great cultural changes that can be observed archaeologically. Previous cbanges were no less considerable and were of great signi­ficance for social and ethnic processes, particularly the process of language consolidation, mixing and replacement. In 1989 we published a collective work on the ethoogenesis of the Slavs (Slaviane 1989), in which I suggested a general scheme of this cultural process with regard to archaeological cultures from the first millennium B.C. to the first millennium AD (Fig. 4). The soptas, long barrows and other groups of archaeological remains in Northwest Russia belong in principle to the same scheme as a continuation of the same processes in the northern peripbery of the forest zone of tbe Russian Plain.

r--- ---- ----- ---- ------ ---, cemeteries of transitional times :

i----I OTHS rm

--

1 '-------'

1 1 1 1

--~ 1

: local centres

[mJ

1 1 1 1 I I 1 1 1 1 1

Fig. 3. The "opposite hypothesis" of the peopling of Northwest Russia by the Slavs. The abbrevia­tions are the same as in Fig. 2. oms - open trade-handicraft settlements - Ig - burial sites with inhumations of the 11th-12th centuries (after Lebedev 1981)

Slav cubures of the

0G

I 92

8tIl-1Oth centuries

~ C. 3/4 t mill.

~ Prag-

PIc. Ad.-G .• Be. Kol.-Tush. Ko<chack Kurgan-Azak c.

t ~

Post-Zc Kiev-type c. ~ CC

I I-G EIA cultures: MI. Sk. YotJkh. 00.-0.., U.O. I

Fig. 4. The general scheme of Slavic ethoogenesis according to ar­chaeologica1 data. EIA - Early IrOD Age cultures, MI -Milograd, Sk - Strol:ed Ware culture, Youkh - Youkhonovo culture, DD.-Dv. - Dnieper­Dvina culture, U.O. - Upper Oka culture, v::. - Zarubincy culture, CC Cbemiakov culture, Post-ZC - post-Zarubinciao cul­tures. C 3/4 1 mill - cuitures of the third quarter of the first mil­lennium AD.: Pk - Pco 'kovu culture, All.-G. - Adarnenki­Gaimanovo culture, Be -Bancerovscbina culture, Kal.­Tush. - Kolochin-Tushemlia culture (after Lebedev 1989)

I SLAVS I I BALTS I t t

I Proto-Slavs I I Proto-Baits I

p~-~+ 1 1 +-

I Pre-Baits

t I Proto-Slavo-Balts I

Fig. 5. The scheme of the same process according to lin­guistic data (after Lebedev 1989).

The problem consists, however, in the associa­tion between cultural (archaeological) and linguis­tic (ethnic) processes. We stressed the fundamental independence of these processes with respect to one another, although the main pbases of both (lin­guistic and archaeological) can coincide (Fig. 5).

We explored these processes in the connections between Slavs, Scandinavians, Finns, Balts and others during the Viking Age (Slaviane i Skandi­navy 1986). In 1992 I proposed a general model of these processes (Fig. 6).

The problem remains, however, of how this "model" can be investigaed with the means of sepa­rate disciplines: archaeology, linguistics, anthro­pology etc. Together with Professor A. Gerd, a lin­guist, we suggested a general solution to the prob­lems (Gerd and Lebedev 1991). The first condition is the separate ordering of data in the individual disciplines (Table 1).

I ___ Early_Ages r-RR--, ..,

E

u

R

-01 IlIt8IactIoi i

p

E poce

Western states

Scandinavians I.O(O(--";~~I

Baits

Scandinavian kingdoms

Rome I Mediterranean civilization

Slavs

Finns

Kiavan RUSSia

BYline.

• •

D

•

n

c

3

Fig. 6. The common model of the for­mation of "early medieval Baltic civilization. RR - "Rurik's Rus", i.e. Northwest Russia in the 9th-11th centuries (after Lebedev 1993).

93

Table I Model of data matrix for the interdisciplinary exposition of the Historical-Cultural Zone (HCZ): East­Novgorodian HCZ. ORC - Old Russian culture, S - sopkas, LB -long barrows, TWC Textile Ware culture, DC Dyakovo culture ("Western variant"), Fe - Fatyanovo culture, PC Pitted Ware culture (after Gerd and Lebedev 1991).

Chronology Structural types of material

archaeological language cultures of the

population

1 mill. AD aRC Slavic 1 mill. AD S West-Finnic 1 mill. AD LB West-Finnic 1 mill. BC TWC(DC?) West-Finnic,

Baltic 1-2 mill. BC -. - - West-Finnic,

Baltic 2 mill . BC FC West-Finnic 2-3 mill. BC UVC West-Finnic 3 mill. BC Finno-Ugrian 3-4 mill. BC PC Finno-Ugrian 4 mill. BC Saami 4-5 mill. BC Proto-Saami?

In the case of the "Slavs and Finns", the situation studied by Ligi, tbese disciplines, alongside ar­chaeology, can be: numismatics, the study of his­torical records and toponymies.

Numismatic data show that a common system involving the circulation of Arabian silver was a main factor promoting urbanization, already exist­ing in the period 780-833 on the main routes and in the main centres of the East Slav area (as also among the Eastern Finnic populations between the Volga and the aka). The West Finnic populations in Estonia, KareHa and elsewhere, as well as the Baits on the Daugava, were distinct from these processes (Nosov 1976; Lebedev 1985; Berga 1980).

Historical sources testify to the emergence of the "Russian" state after 838 (841-852). Through the activities of the Varangian princes it continued its existence in Northwest Russia, particularly in La­doga and Novgorod around 862-864 (Rurik) and with the consolidation of the Slavic and non-Slavic trihes from the north to the south of the "Old Rus­sian State" after the raid of Prince Oleg in 882. Thus, the consolidation of this elite continued with intensity in the 9th century.

Place-names, particularly those of major water routes (the Volkhov and the Loval') and of many small rivers in Northwest Russia are Slavic, with highly archaic linguistic forms in many cases (Sedov 1953). These circumstances point to the ab­senee of contacts hetween the Slavs and the Finnic

94

antbro- etbno- geo-pology grapby grapby

population, or to the absence of an "autochtho­nous" population in these regions and localities.

I would also point out that the linguistic-ethnie connection between Slavs and Baits (see Fig. 5) and archaeological cultures (Fig. 4) are different in principle with respect to tbe Slavs and the Finnic population. The Slavic and Baltic (Lettish and Litbuanian) languages helong to the same branch of the Indo-European family of languages and neighbouring populations could understand each other because they spoke closely related dialects.

The population of Northwest Russia spoke the dialects of different language families: Indo-Euro­pean (Slavs) and Ural-Altaie (Finnic peoples). Here, the interrelation of linguistic and cultural processes must he quite different compared with the schemes suggested for the territory of the Slavs and the Baits in 1989.

All these connections, however t require attentive and objective research. Not only the above pro­cesses of historical development, but otbers as well. The formation of the state, Christianity,litera­ture, national independence etc. all proceeded at a slower pace in the "Finnic" countries than in Rus­sia, Poland, Germany or Scandinavia. 1be objec­tive study of these processes requires attention to the respective roles of all participants and contribu­tors to "early medieval Baltic civilization" (Lebe­dev 1986), be they Slavs or Scandinavians, Finns or Lapps. 1be contribution of the latter can he esti-

mated much higher than those of all the others in the development of our common cultural-ecologi­cal foundation. All that is required is an attentive respect for each other. In Soviet Russian archaeol­ogy, OUf "opposition school" opposed national-ro­manticism since it strived for the purification of national and social mentality. In 1989, the Estonian author Jaan Kross remarked that the "modem pe­riod" of the renaissance of national mentality in the Baltic countries began from archaeology. Yet this happened not only in these countries but also in the Slavic ones, and this was particularly the case in Russia.

REFERENCES

Berga, 1980. 6epra T.M. MOHeTbi B apxeoJlOrHlJecKHX nBMRTHHKaJC JISTBHJI X-Xll BeKOB. Asrope<p. KatUl. AlIce. 11., 1980.

Bulkin et. aJ 1978. BYlIKHH B.A., ,l\y60B I1.B., 1Ie6eJleB r.c. APXeo.nOI1f'lecKHe nBMJlTHHXH I(peBHell PyCH IX-XI BB. n .. lh.ll-BO ReH.YH-Ta.

Gerd & Lobedev, 1991. fepJl A.c., l\e6eJleB f.C. 3K­CIIJIHK:amUI HCTOpHKo-KyJIbTypHhlX 308 H 3THHQec­

KWI HcroplUl BepXHeA PyeH. COBeTCKlJJl 37'80-

rpaq,HR, 11991. Ligi, 1993.ligi P. National romanticism in archaeology:

The paradigm of Slavonic colonisation in Nort-West Russia. Fennoscandia archaeologica X.

Lebedev, 1978. JIe6e.lleB r.c. Comc:a y)t. PenhH B Bep­XHeM nOJlYIbe. KpaTKJIe coo6~eHHJl HHcrllT'J'T3 apxeo.noI'HH. BbIII. 155.

Lebedev, 1981. np06neMa reHe3Hca .Q.peBHepyccKoA Kypr8HHoJ:l KYJ1bTypbl. KpaTKHe coo6IUeHHH HHCl'H­

Tyra apxeo.noI'HH, BbB1. 166. Lebedev, 1985. 3noxa BHKHHroB B CesepHoR EBpone.

HCTOpHKD-apxeoJlOrHqecKHe OqepKH. JI., Ih.ll-BO JIeH.ya-T8.

Lebedev, 1986. Ba.rrndIcKas cy6KOHTHHell'J'a.TIb<Ul l{HBIlJIH3aItHJI p8HHero cpe,D;HeeeKoBbB. K nOCT8HOBe np06neMbl. X BcecoJ03HaR KOHcpepeHl!HJl no

HcyqeHHlQ HCTOPHH, 3KOHOMHlCH, mrrepaT}'PbI H

Jl3bI1C8 CKllHJtHHaBCKHX CTpIUI H tDHHJlJlHJlHH. Te3. .QOlUl. q. I., M.

L.ebedev, 1989. Apxeonoro-J1HHrBHCTHqecKIUI runOTe3a CJl8BntCKOro :n'HOreHe3a. CnaBJIHe. 3THoreHe:J H

3THH'lecKaR HCTOPHJl. JI. Lebedev, 1993. Rurik's Rus' als Bestandteil des Ostsee­

raum. Regio1UJJe ldentitdten in den Ostsee-Ldndern. Lubeck.

Nosov, 1976. HOCOB E.H. HYMH3MaTHQecKHe .Il8HHbleH o ceeepHoA QaCTH 6anTHitcKD-BOJ1JKCKoro nyru KOHlla VIU - X BB. - BcnoMoraTClIbllble HCTOPHqec­

KHeaH~u.No.8,JI. Nosov, 1982. np06J1eMbl H3YQemUI norpe6aJJbHblX

naMJl'l'llHl:OB HOBroPO.llCKOA 3eMJIH (K BOnpocy 0 CJlaBSlHCKOM pacceneUHH). - HOsroPO.QCKHit HCTO­

PHQeclCHi/ c60PHHlC, 1 (XI). Sedov, 1953. Ce)toB B.B. 3THIf1IecKHA COCTaB

Hace.neHHS ceBepo-3aIIa,o;HbIX 3eMeJJb BeJIHKoro HOBropo.Q.a. - COBeTClClJJl apxeo.norHJI XVIII.

Sedov, 1982. BocrollHble CJ1aBSlHe B VI-XIII BB. -Apxeo.norHJl CCCP. no.ll 06U1.eA pe.ll. HM. B.A. Pbl6u:oBa. M.

Slaviane, 1989. CnaBJIHC. 3THoreHe:J H 3THH'lecKaJI HC­

ropHH (Me~HCllHDJlHHapHble HCCJle.llOBaHHB). Pe.ll. A.c. rep.ll, r.c. JIe6e.lleB. JI., H3.1l-BO JIeR.YH-Ta.

Slaviane i Scandinavy, 1986. CnaBHHC H CKaI(JlHHaBbI.

Ors.pe.ll. E.A. Me.nbHHKOBa. M .• "nporpecc".

95